RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on August 24, 2019, 02:20:30 PM
-
https://youtu.be/wRmRD_G4aak (https://youtu.be/wRmRD_G4aak)
-
Perhaps I am missing something, but I just don't "see" it. Looks clean to me.
-
Are you talking about the block on the top at the 45? I'm not going down on that.
-
Are you talking about the block on the top at the 45? I'm not putting a flag down on that.
-
For everyone who is saying this is not a foul ....if instead of making contact with the blockee’s side this same contact was made to the blockee’s head, woukd you call targeting ?
-
In MA this year an easy call. Not so in NCAA where it's strictly a judgment call based on our view of force.
-
There is nothing close to a BSB on this play. I see both the crack back at the A45 and the contact at the B47. Neither is forcible contact. Don't just it just because the defender goes to the ground as forcible. This is a subjective definition, but look for the blow-up hit. Neither one of these are blow ups.
-
If the hit at the A-45 had been to the head of the blockee with a launch, no targeting?
-
At what time of the game was this block?
-
Early in 1st quarter. 12:11 left
-
After having worked some scrimmages, and looked at some old game video, I honestly think the BSB rule will eventually get "adjusted." I have seen two examples of what, by the current rule language, would definitely be considered a BSB. But, in both cases, the player being blocked is committed in a direct attempt to tackle/block the BC, when he gets hit by a teammate of the BC - yes, from outside his field of vision, and forcibly. With the rule as it is, the teammate of the BC has two choices: 1) attempt to help his BC - and his team - by committing a BSB, or 2) ease up, or give up, virtually guaranteeing that the defender will make the tackle/block on the BC. Choice 2) will really look good in the film room on Monday. "Why didn't you help your team? You just let that guy hit our guy!"
If enough of that happens, we may see an exception for a block on an opponent that is committed in his movement and intent, and in an immediate and direct attempt to tackle or block the BC.
Just my thoughts. Foul for now.
Robert
-
Probably best to let it go if it's not a kill shot.
-
What if he had blocked below the waist?
-
After having worked some scrimmages, and looked at some old game video, I honestly think the BSB rule will eventually get "adjusted." I have seen two examples of what, by the current rule language, would definitely be considered a BSB. But, in both cases, the player being blocked is committed in a direct attempt to tackle/block the BC, when he gets hit by a teammate of the BC - yes, from outside his field of vision, and forcibly. With the rule as it is, the teammate of the BC has two choices: 1) attempt to help his BC - and his team - by committing a BSB, or 2) ease up, or give up, virtually guaranteeing that the defender will make the tackle/block on the BC. Choice 2) will really look good in the film room on Monday. "Why didn't you help your team? You just let that guy hit our guy!"
If enough of that happens, we may see an exception for a block on an opponent that is committed in his movement and intent, and in an immediate and direct attempt to tackle or block the BC.
Just my thoughts. Foul for now.
Robert
You forgot option 3) Block him by leading with your hands or shielding/screening him. Both effectively take him out of the play without risk of taking him out of the game. You can block him, you just can't blow him up. That's why I said neither of the potential blocks in this video are forcible so they shouldn't be BSB.
-
You forgot option 3) Block him by leading with your hands or shielding/screening him. Both effectively take him out of the play without risk of taking him out of the game. You can block him, you just can't blow him up. That's why I said neither of the potential blocks in this video are forcible so they shouldn't be BSB.
Based on the rule language I agree. Note that rule 9-1-18 does NOT prohibit all blind-side blocks, only those that are "forcible". We definitely need more guidance on this, and TXMike's play is a good one to get a ruling on.
And to TXMike: Should the contact in this video be of the same force but to the head/neck area with a targeting indicator, I would not call targeting, as targeting too requires a forcible contact.
-
Reportedly the block in the Youngstown State game has been seen by RR and he is saying no foul. So I agree with The King, there will likely be some tweaking to this rule, by interpretation if not also by rewriting. Initially we were saying extended hands (push) or screen, no foul, anything else, foul. Don't think it is that simple. There can be extended hands blocks that will be very forcible and maybe some shoulder blocks that are no so much. I also think we may see some revision with regard to player movement direction. If the block generally takes the blockee in the direction he was heading, maybe that is not as dangerous as the one that brings him to a crashing stop or movement backwards or to the side. Who knows where we will go with this.
-
Based on the rule language I agree. Note that rule 9-1-18 does NOT prohibit all blind-side blocks, only those that are "forcible". We definitely need more guidance on this, and TXMike's play is a good one to get a ruling on.
And to TXMike: Should the contact in this video be of the same force but to the head/neck area with a targeting indicator, I would not call targeting, as targeting too requires a forcible contact.
And that is my point Kalle, we need to determine what forcible contact looks like and apply it equally to targeting and blindside blocking. The comments I have seen all weekend on various social media sites have me thinking many of us are applying a diff standard when it comes to targeting.
-
Okay... this is how we will judge forcible contact ...wait for crowd reaction. They ewwww and ahhhh, it was forcible. 😁😁😁